Why Can't DC Get it right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me clarify, "comic book movies" by conventional definition, i.e. superhero movies. Of the big leagues, TDK has been the closest. I personally think the style and tone Unbreakable had, will be the closest that type of movie has to mimic to appease the standards of Oscar votes.

You trying to tell me that TDK and Heath Ledger didn't deserve an Oscar? There are a lot more folks (and pretty prestigious ones) than say you, Oddzball, and a hand full of other guys who think they did.
 
I think TDK should have at least been nominated, at least....I think it would have solidified the genre and probably helped other projects get off the ground down the road
 
You trying to tell me that TDK and Heath Ledger didn't deserve an Oscar? There are a lot more folks (and pretty prestigious ones) than say you, Oddzball, and a hand full of other guys who think they did.
I already said Heath deserved it. As for the film, no I don't think it did (however close it came). Though I will note what Pfister was robbed, and so was Nolan's nomination.

This is going to be a bit harder to explain, but to me the Oscar-calibre movies evoke a instinctive feeling within the viewer that it's an "Oscar movie". Generally they're all well acted, directed, and written. They're all very consistent in all areas, and most importantly the material is genuinely and emotionally real. Which is to say it didn't have moments where you felt taken out of the movie, or certain things didn't match up with the rest of the flick.

With TDK, those moments were Bale's performance as Bats, and the "performances" of the non-essential supporting characters. When I saw Harvey, Gordon, Alfred, and Joker on-screen, their performances just came off as genuine. I could believe these were real people. I'm instantly taken away from that anytime I see Batman, due to Bale's method. It's so utterly fake and over-the-top that even at his most dramatic moments (raging out in the interrogation), I never once bought that it was genuine. Ditto for all the amateur actors playing the Gotham citizens. They were truly terrible. Overdramatic performances that looked like they stumbled onto the wrong set when they belonged on a sitcom or a stage play.

Unfortunately when everything else is so well-done, the aspects that fail to be consistent come off a lot worse. Regardless of how small they are.
 
Well, as it turned out, TDK had 8 nominations (the most of any comicbook film), and Heath Ledger won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as The Joker. He also won awards for his role from other international institutes.
 
I already said Heath deserved it. As for the film, no I don't think it did (however close it came). Though I will note what Pfister was robbed, and so was Nolan's nomination.

This is going to be a bit harder to explain, but to me the Oscar-calibre movies evoke a instinctive feeling within the viewer that it's an "Oscar movie". Generally they're all well acted, directed, and written. They're all very consistent in all areas, and most importantly the material is genuinely and emotionally real. Which is to say it didn't have moments where you felt taken out of the movie, or certain things didn't match up with the rest of the flick.

With TDK, those moments were Bale's performance as Bats, and the "performances" of the non-essential supporting characters. When I saw Harvey, Gordon, Alfred, and Joker on-screen, their performances just came off as genuine. I could believe these were real people. I'm instantly taken away from that anytime I see Batman, due to Bale's method. It's so utterly fake and over-the-top that even at his most dramatic moments (raging out in the interrogation), I never once bought that it was genuine. Ditto for all the amateur actors playing the Gotham citizens. They were truly terrible. Overdramatic performances that looked like they stumbled onto the wrong set when they belonged on a sitcom or a stage play.

Unfortunately when everything else is so well-done, the aspects that fail to be consistent come off a lot worse. Regardless of how small they are.

Ok, so I see where you said that, but I am interpreting that to mean that these types of films are not deserving if they don't have an actor who won an award. The thing is, a film doesn't have to have a really good actor to win an award. One film that comes to mind is "Dick Tracy" (and if you try to say that he doesn't count, then Batman shouldn't either). That film won 3 Oscars (and it was nominated for 7). It was a great film even though there was no actor in it who won an Academy award (although Al Pacino was nominated, and Warren Beaty had the lead role). I think it is disigenuous to attempt to stratify the genre to just a few possible films either.
 
You have misinterpreted my statement then. For example, I thought Slumdog was deserving of its win for Best Picture, but by no means did any of its actors have a significant impression on me. As I noted, every facet of the movie just has to be very good for what it is, and consistent as well.

As for the genre label, it is what it is. If I had it my way there would be no such thing as a "comic book" or "superhero" genre, as their respective films could easily be categorized in other established genres. I've only limited the term as to clarify what specific types of movies I was referring to.
 
Fair enough, since these films go up against other genre when being considered for an Oscar. So are you trying to say that "Dick Tracy didn't deserve the awards it won then, or even Superman the Movie, or Batman '89? I would have thought that Dick Tracy deserved it since it went up against films like "The Godfather part III" and "Dances with Wolves" (when it won for Best Art Direction) and "Edward Sissor Hands" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" (when it won for Best Makup).
 
Let me clarify, "comic book movies" by conventional definition, i.e. superhero movies. Of the big leagues, TDK has been the closest. I personally think the style and tone Unbreakable had, will be the closest that type of movie has to mimic to appease the standards of Oscar votes.

Wow...some of you REALLY dont count these things as comic book movies, when...it is irrefutable fact that they ARE comic book movies. The common sense hurdles that are being leaped over in this thread to do this is astounding.

By the way..."conventional" definition? You mean horror comics, right? Or westerns? Or what exactly? Comic books right now are dominated by superheroes (which is stupid and shows what little intellectual depth the current readership possess) but there have been grand periods where superheroes were a small portion of comic sales.
 
They are trying to cater to young males. That's why it might seem a little lacking in depth.
 
Fair enough, since these films go up against other genre when being considered for an Oscar. So are you trying to say that "Dick Tracy didn't deserve the awards it won then, or even Superman the Movie, or Batman '89? I would have thought that Dick Tracy deserved it since it went up against films like "The Godfather part III" and "Dances with Wolves" (when it won for Best Art Direction) and "Edward Sissor Hands" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" (when it won for Best Makup).
I'm referring strictly to the "big" Oscar awards, like acting and Best Picture. B89 and Supes definitely earned their technical awards, for sure. Ditto for Dick Tracy.

Wow...some of you REALLY dont count these things as comic book movies, when...it is irrefutable fact that they ARE comic book movies. The common sense hurdles that are being leaped over in this thread to do this is astounding.
Calm down, skip. If you had read a little more or kindly asked what I meant, you'd have figured out it wasn't to box the genre in a demeaning way. The superhero flicks we've had are vastly different in tone and style than the likes of 'A History of Violence' and 'Road to Perdition'. I personally do not consider "comic book movies" to be an actual genre, hence why I tried to make that particular distinction for the point I was making.

If we want to be real technical, since Road to Perdition is a comic book movie, then yes, that was the only one I thought deserved a Best Picture nomination.
 
Calm down, skip. If you had read a little more or kindly asked what I meant, you'd have figured out it wasn't to box the genre in a demeaning way. The superhero flicks we've had are vastly different in tone and style than the likes of 'A History of Violence' and 'Road to Perdition'. I personally do not consider "comic book movies" to be an actual genre, hence why I tried to make that particular distinction for the point I was making.

If we want to be real technical, since Road to Perdition is a comic book movie, then yes, that was the only one I thought deserved a Best Picture nomination.

It's is odd...because all comic book movies are thrown into that genre...when the comic book medium covers all possible genres.

I suppose it is the same as when tv shows become movies...novels not so much...

The point is, we should embrace the incredible diversity in comics, rather than try to limit our ourselves to one genre.
 
Marvel released two movies this year...DC releases two movies this year.

I'm not sure why this is considered up for debate.

I would say it has to do with the fact that Marvel has released movies with A and B list characters while WB/DC has only ever relased two A lsit characters and are just now getting to B and more than likely C list characters. Of course you can argue where Watchmen fit in but in my opinion it's like The Losers, Swamp Thing and Jonah Hex in that if they didn't attatch the DC branding people probaly wouldn't know they where from DC. Stardust which was first put out as a comic/illistrated noval by Vertigo wasn't even released by WB but rather Paramount and doesn't even have a DC or Vertigo branding. When it comes down to it DC has only ever released 8 characters/titles(not including imprints or TV movies) as movies while Marvel has released 14 characters/titles. And lets face it Catwoman is Catwoman in title only, but I did add it in. But out of the 8 DC characters that have movies you have three characters related to BM and SM. Even if you just compair WB/DC to Marvel Studios, Marvel is still leaps and bounds ahead of DC. And at times to me it seems like WB/DC are dragging their feet when it comes to putting out movies about DC characters out side of BM and SM or related characters.

While I get the argument as to why a Wonder Woman movie is going at such a slow pace. I just don't see it for other DC characters. I just have a hard time believing that they can't get a good scrit for any body beisdes BM. Or rather I don't get why WB/DC has such a hard time in getting good scripts for any character.
 
^exactly,

it's like the argument: Well it costs money and WB is too smart of a company to risk losing money on a character by funding a live action film. Well if WB is afraid certain films of certain characters will flop due to not being popular enough, I've got 1 simple solution.....PROMOTE THAT CHARACTER MORE!!!!!!!!!

Look what they did with Green Lantern, dude was a huge part of the Superfriends/Superhero cartoons of the 70's, the recent Justice League/Unlimited cartoon, the animated movie, and a huge story that just ran in the comics "blackest night" and now look......BAM! Live action movie in the works

do the same with everyone else. Start promoting these characters more, get them known, and maybe it won't be such a gamble when it comes to making the live action movie.

not that difficult a concept, really

sure it's still a risk, you may lose money in promoting these characters to get them ready for the big screen, but that's the gamble in this game we call.....LIFE. It's just something that's GOT TO BE DONE, NO IF'S AND'S OR BUT'S.

you've got to go out there with the mentality that "failure is not an option" and give it 110%....otherwise...get out the damn game and make way for a company with some real f'ng balls
 
Some of you self-loathing comic book fans need to understand that The Losers, Swamp Thing, Stardust, A History Of Violence etc ARE comic books. You can keep jumping through hurdles...but they are still comics and that isnt changing.

I love how it's "Marvel releases movies through different studios" followed by "Stardust was released by a different studio so it doesnt count".

Just really...any excuse to not count these things as comic book movies...

You guys would disown an Oscar award winning Maus film because it doesnt count unless there are superheroes (and none of those indie superheroes either, only Marvel and DC count as being real). It's the classic syndrome of thinking that the genre is not worthy of anything greater than Nic Cage eating jellybeans. It's kind of sad that 12 pages in and we are still seeing people deny that A History Of Violence, Road To Perdition and V For Vendetta actually exist as comic books.
 
^exactly,

it's like the argument: Well it costs money and WB is too smart of a company to risk losing money on a character by funding a live action film. Well if WB is afraid certain films of certain characters will flop due to not being popular enough, I've got 1 simple solution.....PROMOTE THAT CHARACTER MORE!!!!!!!!!

Look what they did with Green Lantern, dude was a huge part of the Superfriends/Superhero cartoons of the 70's, the recent Justice League/Unlimited cartoon, the animated movie, and a huge story that just ran in the comics "blackest night" and now look......BAM! Live action movie in the works

and that is over the course of what...20 years?? I don't think every character warrants that type of lead in time

sure it's still a risk, you may lose money in promoting these characters to get them ready for the big screen, but that's the gamble in this game we call.....LIFE. It's just something that's GOT TO BE DONE, NO IF'S AND'S OR BUT'S.

actually they are a movie studio and the job is to produce movies that make money, entertain, and generate profit so other films can be made

you've got to go out there with the mentality that "failure is not an option" and give it 110%....otherwise...get out the damn game and make way for a company with some real f'ng balls

oh stop it, take that chest beating rah rah crap somewhere else...WB owns those characters and they are going to do what they damn well please

we all as fans may not like it, but thats how it is
 
I'm referring strictly to the "big" Oscar awards, like acting and Best Picture. B89 and Supes definitely earned their technical awards, for sure. Ditto for Dick Tracy.

Well, you could say that as well for most genres. Now on the filp side you coudl argue that these films were the "best pictures" in those particular category (art direction, cinematrography, etc.) and they bested some other great films in that year they were released. It is still quite an accomplishment in itself. Studios flaunt the fact that they were nominated let alone won the award.
 
I remember, as I was young, a sort of dichotomy, and in my mind, a competition between Disney cartoons and Warner Brothers cartoons, especially during that 3-6pm time slot. One one hand you had BTAS, on the other hand you had Darkwing Duck, on one hand there was Animaniacs, on the other hand there was Duck Tales.

Now, it seems that Disney and WB are in direct competition again on another niche market: the superhero movie, and indeed, comic books as a whole. I find that kind of funny.

Losers, Jon Hex, that's just this year. What is so hard about making a great Superman movie? It's 2010! I hope Green Lantern kicks butt so they (Warner Bro) gain some confidence in the source material. I know I could come up with a good Superman movie ... they made Avatar for like $400, I think.

Keep his Blue uni exact as comic and give him a real foe, lose that looser Luther. Then ACTION, ACTION, ACTION. Drop Lois, make the treat world wide and progressive.

Dark Knight was good, but I enjoyed Batman Begin's more. I needed to know what made this Joker so unbeatable.

Love the Green Arrow ideas about the prison. Make it already.

I think WB is over analysing. Pay the writers that understand the characters to start writing. Superrvise the Producer & Director, is it that hard?

How would you turn things around?

Well, first I'd get a lay of the land. Successful movies will not make WB more confident in all superheroes, only in the successful properties. This is what they learned for Superman Returns, putting a good character with a proven director and team does not make success. So, what to do? It works for Marvel, perhaps the public just isn't interested in DC heroes. That's the perspective that WB execs are coming from. How would they know who undersetands the characters if they don't understand the characters?

What's so hard about making a Superman movie?
- Superman is a messianic character, driven by morality and destiny in a world and industry that is more and more appreciating the Machiavellian ubermensch archetype. To make Superman a great character, you have to accept something higher than humanity as relevant, valid and logical, and there just aren't many people in charge who do.

What would I do to turn it around?
Well, honestly, I'd take 3-5 steps.

1) I'd write an epic Superman script about destiny, responsibility and morality contrasted with a more Machiavellian perspective of Luthor with an epic and innovative action component embodied by Metallo and a change in general audience perspective of Superman embodied by Lois Lane and show it to Steven Spielberg, letting the messianic aspect of Superman (Spielberg was raised Orthodox Jewish) and the epic spectacle (and likes a challenge) appeal to him. He'd be all in. I'd let him use his A++ talents to get the team together for that. Now we've established that Superman is not only as awesome and profitable as Batman, but that heroes can be fascinatingly interesting and dynamic without being tragically flawed (girlfriend dead, anger problems, powers out of control thing).

2) I'd write a Wonder Woman TV pilot that was quick with the dialogue, had a very girl next door fish out of water charm to it, and involved more than its fair share of girl power butt-kicking. I'd show the CW how dramatically it would appeal to their target audience, with the women empowerment, the female protagonist, the sprawling spectacle of ancient decor. I'd bring on Tom Welling as a producer/showrunner, let him get his chair experience that he wants so badly in an element he's familiar with.

3) Once those drop, make sure that DC heroes are in position to cash in on the crazes. Field TV pilots for Flash, John Stewart Green Lantern, 'Robin Begins,' Zatanna, and Green Arrow. Get Joss Whedon on the phone, ask him if he wants Power Girl or Birds of Prey. Field Fall and Spring Release scripts for Aquaman, Captain Marvel, Catwoman, Black Lightning, Static Shock, Justice Society of America, and all of those non-superhero graphic novels. Field animation films for major events like Knightfall, Crisis on Infinite Earths and JUSTICE. Field new kids cartoons for Young Justice (I know, already done), Plastic Man, Archie and Friends, Jamie Reyes Blue Beetle (steal the Spectacular Spider-Man team), and others. Once the money is there, they'll be all over it. Even pitch an Atom and Friends to public television, and definitely field the Wildstorm Universe to Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, though I'd also field something that didn't seem so... tired. 4th World, Adam Strange, Green Lantern, even some non-powered period stuff. Let them go as adult as they want and put it on adult swim, or get Dawn Ostroff fired and put it post primetime on the CW. This ensures not only that DC becomes an incredibly recognized brand, but that the next generation will continue to see value in these characters.

4) I'd do Batman vs Superman, an epic battle that really breaks down the two characters and what they are about and what they are not about. The conflict would be something important enough for them to fight about, I assure you. They'd team up in the very end, relax.

5) I'd do Justice League as 3 films, all filmed simultaneously, as ridiculously magnificent as Lord of the Rings. Filled with people reprising their roles from the other films. I would, through sheer force of my personality, get James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, Joel Silver and Ang Lee to produce and select a fitting director. I'd suggest Brad Bird... I'd dare even get Tom Welling.

From there, just promote the next generation of heroes in whatever genre is popping. If more fantasy mystic stuff is big, do Dr. Fate, Spectre, Hawkman and Hawkgirl, If more Sci-Fi stuff is big, do another Trilogy of Green Lantern and some Adam Strange. I would dare even develop non-action movies with DC characters, including Romantic Comedies, Suspense Thrillers, Period Dramas, Science Fiction, Horror... the works. By that time, DC's brand will be solidified, Batman will be emerging as a film series on par with James Bond and Superman on par with Rocky, known for it's epic climactic fight scenes. Wonder Woman will have become a household name as talked about as LOST and Heroes. I'd also approach the other powers that be at Disney and make a Marvel DC crossover happen, either in the vein of 'Marvel vs DC' or in the vein of JLA/Avengers.

And then I'd get on with my own personal projects...
 
Last edited:
i agree with you guys above. hopefully things will be changing now with the whole change in dc comics and all that under wb. i as i said in other posts just hope for any studio to the best of luck with adapting characters like this. hopefully they will find the proper folks who can bring these characters to screen in the right way.
 
GL lost me at Spielberg, if he wanted to get in to the super hero genre, he would have done so by now

I maintain the main problem is that a super hero film is looked at, by Hollywood, as a product and not a film
 
GL, how do you expect anyone to fork over the dosh for THREE proper budgeted JL films without seeing a dime in return in between them?

Its not going to happen...
 
I couldn't read it all the way through.... the racket from all the name dropping distracted me
 
GL at least approached the question without getting his undies in a tissy. (Crook, Batman, batlovescatDC, or Sawyer) Bravo!

Interesting you mention Captain Marvel, I was extra-excited when they announced plans to make a serious movie on the character. Then someone over analysised it, worrying about his having issues as a child in an adult body blah, blah, blah.
What's wrong with just having fun with it? I never remember the comic book addressing this issue. I mean the char has the wisdom of Solomon.

Again, the makers not being in touch with the background, I think he could deal. But nope... development hell, with everyone else.
(Oh hi, I'm CM. Hello I'm Oliver Queen, nice to meet you. This is Flash, Superman, oh WW over here, we're he Justice League.)

I know it's changing for the better, that's the purpose of the thread. Discuss how. Or wait till August, but not argue numbers, like a politician... or a dirty Crook.

GL has a point, just like Leterrier suggested in another avenue, with the Avengers. If you have the commitment doing it at once saves time, money, contract problems. Luis suggested 3 directors for 3 films released on consecutive months during the summer. Bold? Yes, but the payoff could be unpreccedented.

We have a saying while skying with other skiers: "NO GUTS... NO GLORY!"
 
Last edited:
the numbers are a part of it, it takes a lot of money to produce these films
 
For sure BL. It would be a huge leap of faith especially in this genre. Maybe the next "Harry Potter" type novel to come along that has a kind of mass apeall that transcends multiple genres.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"